Our Cincinnati colleague Matt Fellerhoff has posted his thoughts on an interesting case from the Ohio Supreme Court, Clifton v. Village of Blanchester, No. CA2009-07-009 (Mar. 1, 2012). The case involves whether an owner whose property is located outside village limits can bring a takings case against the village. The Ohio Supreme Court held it could not. Why, you ask? Because the village could not exercise eminent domain to take the property, the property owner cannot bring a regulatory takings case against the village. Matt writes:
Even more problematic is the holding in the syllabus, that since Blanchester did not have the authority to condemn property outside of village limits, the remedy sought, an order from the court that Blanchester file an eminent domain action against Clifton to pay for the damage to his property (the only remedy for inverse condemnation under Ohio law), was insufficient and therefore, the Plaintiff further had no standing to file suit. In other words, even if there was a taking, Ohio procedures are inadequate to address it; therefore the case must be dismissed.This result not only seems unfair, it also appears to invite exactly the rare scenario, where under Williamson County, state procedures are clearly inadequate to protect the property owner’s Fifth Amendment rights. (For a more detailed analysis of the law, see Preschool Dev., Ltd. v. City of Springboro, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35535 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2005), where another such rare scenario occurs in Ohio.)
Read Matt's entire analysis here ("Recent Ohio Supreme Court Case May Create Opportunit to File Takings Lawsuit in Federal Court").
